Recusal guidelines and the proposal queue

[Auralia]

Following up from Separatist Peoples's post.

Are members of GenSec who are required to recuse themselves from participating in a ruling with respect to a particular proposal also required to abstain from using the hold/discard options in the proposal queue for the purposes of informal rulings?

I ask because SP may be required to recuse himself from ruling on Limitations on Compliance Enforcement, since it is arguably "directly competing" with the Administrative Compliance Act, a proposal co-authored by SP. (I think "directly" might be too strong, since I think they can be made compatible with one another, but they are pushing the Assembly in opposite directions. In addition, my proposal would certainly not be legal if SP passed his first.)

However, SP has made an informal ruling along with Bears Armed that LoCE is illegal, and has marked it as such in the proposal queue. Assuming he's required to recuse himself, is he still allowed to make an informal ruling of this nature?

[Separatist Peoples]

I believe I may be required to recuse myself on a challenge. It's not clear, and I would defer to keeping myself recused. The Control Panel isn't afforded nearly the same kind of care we give to Challenges, because they aren't cooperative rulings. Control Panel decisions are custodial in nature. There isn't generally deliberation involved, and the language of the guideline considers deliberation.

I'd definitely welcome specific guidance on this front, but I suspect that, since you admit the proposals can be rectified, they are not in direct competition. Certainly, my choice of marking your proposal illegal didn't stem out of the proposal, but of the optionality rule.

There is, of course, a simple remedy if I made the wrong call here: Auralia, you could re-submit the proposal (after we get some clarity) as-is, and I'd refrain from marking it illegal. Unless we have a consensus that makes my error ultimately harmless, of course.

Alternatively, an Abstain button on the control panel would let me remove it after the fact. I know BA had that issue once where he marked his own proposal legal by accident and couldn't undo it.

[Auralia]

The Control Panel isn't afforded nearly the same kind of care we give to Challenges, because they aren't cooperative rulings. Control Panel decisions are custodial in nature. There isn't generally deliberation involved, and the language of the guideline considers deliberation.

Yes, I agree that the current recusal guidelines don't appear to apply to control panel rulings.

Still, it does not make much sense that the recusal guidelines should apply to formal deliberations but not the control panel options. I think they should be amended to cover both.

I'd definitely welcome specific guidance on this front, but I suspect that, since you admit the proposals can be rectified, they are not in direct competition.

I think it's ambiguous. I think the fact that they are certainly incompatible if mine is submitted afterwards is a point in favour of direct competition. Moreover, the list of examples in the guidelines is not exhaustive.

There is, of course, a simple remedy if I made the wrong call here: Auralia, you could re-submit the proposal (after we get some clarity) as-is, and I'd refrain from marking it illegal. Unless we have a consensus that makes my error ultimately harmless, of course.

I'm not going to resubmit until a formal challenge has been made and resolved.

Alternatively, an Abstain button on the control panel would let me remove it after the fact. I know BA had that issue once where he marked his own proposal legal by accident and couldn't undo it.

Yes, that would certainly be a good idea.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Control Panel isn't afforded nearly the same kind of care we give to Challenges, because they aren't cooperative rulings. Control Panel decisions are custodial in nature. There isn't generally deliberation involved, and the language of the guideline considers deliberation.

Yes, I agree that the current recusal guidelines don't appear to apply to control panel rulings.

Still, it does not make much sense that the recusal guidelines should apply to formal deliberations but not the control panel options. I think they should be amended to cover both.

They serve different functions. We use the CP the way the mods do: to keep it clear. We only offer explanations by way of recordkeeping, not to form precedent or replace rulings.

There is, of course, a simple remedy if I made the wrong call here: Auralia, you could re-submit the proposal (after we get some clarity) as-is, and I'd refrain from marking it illegal. Unless we have a consensus that makes my error ultimately harmless, of course.

I'm not going to resubmit until a formal challenge has been made and resolved.

That is definitely fair. Just so you know that I can't really undo my input. I could switch it to legal, but even if GenSec did find my actions in the wrong, which isn't likely, I can't remove input entirely.

If, on a sua sponta ruling, GenSec finds it legal (without me), I'll switch my vote to legal per protocol.

Alternatively, an Abstain button on the control panel would let me remove it after the fact. I know BA had that issue once where he marked his own proposal legal by accident and couldn't undo it.

Yes, that would certainly be a good idea.

I'll mention it to an admin.

[Aclion]

I believe I may be required to recuse myself on a challenge. It's not clear, and I would defer to keeping myself recused. The Control Panel isn't afforded nearly the same kind of care we give to Challenges, because they aren't cooperative rulings. Control Panel decisions are custodial in nature. There isn't generally deliberation involved, and the language of the guideline considers deliberation.

3.a considers deliberation; 3.b make no distinction between any GenSec function, be it the Control Panel, Sue Sponte reviews or challenges. It quite clear. "Members of GenSec will recuse themselves".
I don't accept the argument that the recusal guidelines do not apply to use of the control panel. The rule makes no mention of an exception and if we accept that argument then there is little point in having recusal guidelines at all, as it is the control panel that GenSec uses to change a proposals status to reflect their decisions.

[Separatist Peoples]

I believe I may be required to recuse myself on a challenge. It's not clear, and I would defer to keeping myself recused. The Control Panel isn't afforded nearly the same kind of care we give to Challenges, because they aren't cooperative rulings. Control Panel decisions are custodial in nature. There isn't generally deliberation involved, and the language of the guideline considers deliberation.

3.a considers deliberation; 3.b make no distinction between any GenSec function, be it the Control Panel, Sue Sponte reviews or challenges. It quite clear. "Members of GenSec will recuse themselves".
I don't accept the argument that the recusal guidelines do not apply to use of the control panel. The rule makes no mention of an exception and if we accept that argument then there is little point in having recusal guidelines at all, as it is the control panel that GenSec uses to change a proposals status to reflect their decisions.

Wrong on all counts, really. Taking the rule as a whole, 3.b is defined by 3.a. And since the CP didn't exist when we wrote the recusal guidelines, there's no reason to suggest that 3 was ever meant to apply to CP rulings. The panel was created by the mods so we didn't have to bug them to remove proposals that violated the site rules. We don't even apply the same rules regarding plurality to the panel as challenges.

Look, I get that you are always excited to see me removed in disgrace, but when you respond to literally any ambiguity or perceived notion of wrongdoing by grabbing a torch and pitchfork, it makes it hard to take you seriously.

You don't like me. I've no real personal feelings towards you. Lets leave it at that?

[Aclion]

Look, I get that you are always excited to see me removed in disgrace, but when you respond to literally any ambiguity or perceived notion of wrongdoing by grabbing a torch and pitchfork, it makes it hard to take you seriously.

You don't like me. I've no real personal feelings towards you. Lets leave it at that?

I don't have the time to stuck in in another argument about why none of the rules apply to you, but I literally only get on your case because of these things. Outside of your complete lack of ethical integrity I have little objection to you.

[Separatist Peoples]

Look, I get that you are always excited to see me removed in disgrace, but when you respond to literally any ambiguity or perceived notion of wrongdoing by grabbing a torch and pitchfork, it makes it hard to take you seriously.

You don't like me. I've no real personal feelings towards you. Lets leave it at that?

I don't have the time to stuck in in another argument about why none of the rules apply to you, but I literally only get on your case because of these things. Outside of your complete lack of ethical integrity I have little objection to you.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, bucko. Unfortunately for you, the rest of GenSec disagrees with your interpretation. As usual, if you believe I am acting in contravention of site rules, speak to the moderators. But they're gonna tell you the same thing you were told last time: there are six of us to round out a collective opinion and to mitigate potential errors. And even Auralia, the "victim" of my judgment call, agrees that it's ambiguous under the current guidelines. And actions taken in ambiguity are not inherently wrong.

Lets leave the witch hunt behind.

[Aclion]

I don't have the time to stuck in in another argument about why none of the rules apply to you, but I literally only get on your case because of these things. Outside of your complete lack of ethical integrity I have little objection to you.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, bucko. Unfortunately for you, the rest of GenSec disagrees with your interpretation. As usual, if you believe I am acting in contravention of site rules, speak to the moderators. But they're gonna tell you the same thing you were told last time

That this is a matter to bring to gensec. Which I have now done.

[United Massachusetts]

Can we get a screenshot of the control panel? I want to see behind the Wizard's curtain

[Frisbeeteria]

Alternatively, an Abstain button on the control panel would let me remove it after the fact.

Don't hold your breath on this. The technical request queue has been backed up since the spring, as we only have two 'active' admins, and both are almost completely consumed by RL requirements. A GenSec ruling request (i.e. a "soft solution") would be much faster.

[Auralia]

They serve different functions. We use the CP the way the mods do: to keep it clear. We only offer explanations by way of recordkeeping, not to form precedent or replace rulings.

Sure, but I think the logic justifying recusal in the first place still applies. If one has a conflict of interest with respect to a proposal, one shouldn't be taking any administrative action with respect to that proposal.

[Bears Armed]

I can remember that either some other members of GenSec or an involved Mod told me, back when GenSec was still fairly new, that I should recuse myself from marking my own submitted proposals as 'legal'.

They serve different functions. We use the CP the way the mods do: to keep it clear. We only offer explanations by way of recordkeeping, not to form precedent or replace rulings.

Sure, but I think the logic justifying recusal in the first place still applies. If one has a conflict of interest with respect to a proposal, one shouldn't be taking any administrative action with respect to that proposal.

I'd say that taking administrative action was allowable in such cases if that other proposal was clearly illegal anyway under the 'Game Mechanics' rule, as Plagiarism, or under NS's basic rules against flaming & trolling. It might also be justifiable, although not the optimum situation, if proposals that were obviously illegal under at least some of the other rules (e.g. Branding, RL References, trying to repeal without using the 'Repeal' category, new legislation in a Repeal...) were close to going to vote and nobody else was available to act...